A Miami photojournalist has recovered a video documenting his arrest by police …

A Miami journalist has recovered video of police officers arresting him after it was deleted from his camera. The man was covering a police effort to evict Occupy Miami protestors. He plans to file a complaint with the police department and with the United States Department of Justice.

On January 31, Miami police evicted Occupy Miami protesters from their downtown campsite. On hand to cover the action was photojournalist Carlos Miller. Along with protestors and other journalists, he was pushed down the street by a line of police in riot gear. He tried to circle around the block to return to his car, but he found his path blocked by a second line of police officers.

The police weren't arresting the other journalists around him, so Miller said he assumed he would be allowed to cross this second line of officers to return to his car. But when he approached one of the officers, he was stopped and placed under arrest. Upon his release the following morning, he found that several videos he had taken, including the one documenting his arrest, had disappeared.

Miller has since recovered some of the missing video, and it appears to back up his story. Though some crucial sequences are missing, the video shows Miller approaching a female police officer, who blocks his path and then calls other officers over to help arrest him.

"You were given a dispersal order, sir, and you were told you were gonna be placed under arrest," she told Miller in the video. "We don't want to have to hurt you," she said.

"I'm not doing anything," Miller responded. "I'm not resisting."

Constitutional violation?

Miller is a member of the National Press Photographers Association. The organization's general counsel, Mickey Osterreicher, sent a letter to the Miami-Dade Police Department protesting Miller's arrest.

Miller was charged with a single count of resisting arrest. "Aside from a blatant violation of Mr. Miller’s First Amendment rights to record matters of public interest in a public place," Osterreicher wrote, "we do not understand how, absent some other underlying charge for which there was probable cause, a charge of resisting arrest can stand on its own?"

"We believe that the recovered video of the incident will show that officers acted outside of their authority, in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 and similar protections provided by Florida law," he wrote.

Osterreicher also pointed to a recent case involving the Baltimore Police Department. In that case, the Obama administration weighed in with a brief arguing that police officers violated the Constitution when they seized a man's recording device and deleted its contents. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has also ruled that journalists have a First Amendment right to record the activities of the police in public.

Deletion can make things worse

Miller's recovery of his video is a reminder of an important fact about modern digital systems: files that get "deleted" aren't necessarily gone forever. Often the raw data is still on the device and can be recovered. And that means that police officers who delete videos not only expose their departments to liability, they may not even succeed in suppressing the embarrassing video.

Miller's efforts to recover the video were only partially successful, and he plans to take his camera to a forensic specialist in hopes of recovering the remaining segments. He also hopes to determine the exact time the video was deleted, which could substantiate his charge that it was deleted while under police control.

Once he has gathered all the evidence, Miller plans to file a complaint with both the police department and the Department of Justice, objecting to his arrest and the deletion of his videos. The case may further entrench the growing consensus that the Constitution protects the right to record the actions of police officers in public.

If "real" police officers are not like this, why are they not more vocal against the fucking pigs that are?The reality, all police are like this.... Until some of them stand up against it. FUCK THE POLICE!

shut up troll.

If the blue wall didn't exist, he wouldn't have a point. But it does, so he does.

Blue wall?

monkey314159 wrote:

There's loads more of gems in the podcast.

Gems? None of that even made any sense. What are you trying to say? Also, how does this prove that all cops are evil scum?

These kinds of stories amuse me, because it illustrates how little many police know about citizen rights, and technology. "I'll delete the video, that will take care of it!" Sure except you're creating more evidence by doing so. "This guy is standing here, when we're arresting people. That must mean we should arrest him." No, he's a journalist.

Carlos Miller has a history of being arrested by police. There are compelling reasons that he should be able to go places that he does (and you can see him insisting in his videos that he should be allowed to -- incessantly arguing with police officers), but he basically asks for this kind of behavior.

I find him to be rather rude and disrespectful. Kind of like he's asking for this kind of treatment.

EDIT: I don't think that the police are using correct judgement in these situations either. I just think that you get a lot better results when you're respectful. *shrugs*

Dang, until I saw this reply I felt a bit sorry for Miller. I agree. He's one of the reasons why I have a like/hate relationship of Journalism. I see him as a "pain in the ass customer" sort of person.

Having worked on data recovery I think I'm gonna have to call BS on this. The critical break right as she notices him, and sudden jump to him being restrained is highly convenient, on top of that, I find it very hard to believe that if the video were corrupted in the middle, the rest of it would be so incredibly clear. and if it were deleted, then it should have been recovered pretty much in whole, assuming he didn't start recording over it again immediately in which case, he's an idiot.

Well at least I wasn't the only one who noticed how awfully convenient this "footage" of his was. IMO, it reeks of doctored video rather than something that was recovered in pieces from his camera. The guy is up to something.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled numerous times since 1856 that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect any individual, despite the motto "protect and serve". Their duty is to enforce the law in general. The first such case was in 1855 (South et al. v. State of Maryland, U.S (Supreme Court of the United States 1855). ) and the most recent in 2005 (Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales).[69]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Pro ... ndividuals

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race

I've seen the future: the trial will take a couple of years, and in the end, some tugs-with-badges will get a slap on the wrist. The chief of police will make a public appearance saying how he's sorry and this won't happen again.In the meantime, it will happen, again and again.And after the conclusion of the trial, it will still happen.

Police ignore the laws when it's convenient.Police invent new laws when it's convenient.

Without a culture of accountability, Police forces are not much worth than the criminals they say they defend us against.The US, the UK and other countries have shown what happen in a democracy when the police force is allowed to have a culture of impunity.

loptimistk wrote:Thanks for the information. Any police officers happen to read this article will physically destroy the cameras from now on.

Speaking of this. Let's talk perception.

Satirist, Maddox says it perfectly:

The point of this article isn't to judge whether cops are justified in doing what they do. This article has nothing to do with police training. And this isn't just about American cops. This is about the perception that we, the public, have of you when you perform the following actions. It doesn't matter if you disagree with these perceptions, because right or wrong, they exist. The point of this article is to simply let you know that we're watching, and this is how we see things.

I would think that the deletion of files would be treated as a destruction of property. Something the police aren't suppose to do unless its necessary to their duty (like busting in a door). What they are doing is tantamount to impounding a truck driver's truck and returning it without gas or wheels without any reason.

Along with protestors and other journalists, he was pushed down the street by a line of police in riot gear. He tried to circle around the block to return to his car, but he found his path blocked by a second line of police officers.

...

the video shows Miller approaching a female police officer, who blocks his path and then calls other officers over to help arrest him.

"You were given a dispersal order, sir, and you were told you were gonna be placed under arrest," she told Miller in the video. "We don't want to have to hurt you," she said.

"I'm not doing anything," Miller responded. "I'm not resisting."

This may be slightly off-topic, but this kind of thing happens so often that I have trouble believing that it's simply a matter of incompetence or negligence.

When the G20 summit was held here in Pittsburgh a few years back, there were tons of stories of people being forced in one direction by riot police only to be pushed into another line of riot police, with no apparent avenue of escape. They're being ordered by the police to disperse, but actively being prevented from doing so.

Then of course their "failure to disperse" is then used as an excuse to arrest them. All too often the people caught up in this weren't even the defiant protesters, but rather people just going about their business that happened to travel through the area at the wrong time.

Carlos Miller has a history of being arrested by police. There are compelling reasons that he should be able to go places that he does (and you can see him insisting in his videos that he should be allowed to -- incessantly arguing with police officers), but he basically asks for this kind of behavior.

I find him to be rather rude and disrespectful. Kind of like he's asking for this kind of treatment.

A citizen is not an entity paid to be polite and respectful. An officer, however, is.

Maybe if he'd saluted and had said "Sieg Heil" they wouldn't have arrested him. Sadly, there is going to be a steady erosion of our civil rights and only those with deep pockets will be able to fight it. Even if he wins, it will be a hollow victory,as they will only do it again. We continually sit by and ignore the fact that our rights are being stripped away, one at a time. It is now legal for an American to be detained indefinitely if accused of being a terrorist by the military. Everybody read it on their new iPhone while they were standing in line at Starbucks, but did nothing to fight it. People, your Orwellian nightmare is here, but you are too ignorant to see it.

So, I went to Occupy DC this past Sunday. I saw a few officers arrest a single individual my entire time there (whether it was a valid arrest or not, I don't know - dude was obstructing the path for the forklift taking pallets away from the plaza). However, the police swarmed the single individual and he was held while an officer placed cuffs on him. I recorded it and an officer stood in front of me and kept trying to obstruct my view passively (basically I taped a few seconds, he'd turn and walk in front of me, I'd move and keep doing it, he'd repeat). Personally, I think this is exceptionally ignorant. Why? Even though I don't think the police were excessive, unlawful, or malicious in this circumstance, the single officer trying to obstruct my recording made them SEEM guilty.

Maybe if he'd saluted and had said "Sieg Heil" they wouldn't have arrested him. Sadly, there is going to be a steady erosion of our civil rights and only those with deep pockets will be able to fight it. Even if he wins, it will be a hollow victory,as they will only do it again. We continually sit by and ignore the fact that our rights are being stripped away, one at a time. It is now legal for an American to be detained indefinitely if accused of being a terrorist by the military. Everybody read it on their new iPhone while they were standing in line at Starbucks, but did nothing to fight it. People, your Orwellian nightmare is here, but you are too ignorant to see it.

The pendulum will eventually swing back, hard.

We should start a War on LOEs instead of a war on drugs or terrorism, both of which are lesser evil.

So, I went to Occupy DC this past Sunday. I saw a few officers arrest a single individual my entire time there (whether it was a valid arrest or not, I don't know - dude was obstructing the path for the forklift taking pallets away from the plaza). However, the police swarmed the single individual and he was held while an officer placed cuffs on him. I recorded it and an officer stood in front of me and kept trying to obstruct my view passively (basically I taped a few seconds, he'd turn and walk in front of me, I'd move and keep doing it, he'd repeat). Personally, I think this is exceptionally ignorant. Why? Even though I don't think the police were excessive, unlawful, or malicious in this circumstance, the single officer trying to obstruct my recording made them SEEM guilty.

Perception is all that matter and they are losing on that front. We just need to start dehumanizing them for a few years and we should be set for drastic measures.

Carlos Miller has a history of being arrested by police. There are compelling reasons that he should be able to go places that he does (and you can see him insisting in his videos that he should be allowed to -- incessantly arguing with police officers), but he basically asks for this kind of behavior...

Civil Disobedience is a valid form of protest. Check out "Eyes on the Prize" for a clear history of the systematic (and effective) use of civil disobedience.

I'm tired of being outraged by things happening around me everyday and not doing anything about it. But what does one do that has any impact?

Anything you do that would elicit any discernible impact would have you immediately labelled as a radical (one way or the other). Making change is very inconvenient, and merely dealing with changes brought about by others is somewhat inconvenient, and that is just too much for citizens to deal with. We have mortgages to be paid, groceries to buy, kids to shuttle to school, baseball practice, and piano lessons. We can not be bothered with inconsequential "problems" like overbearing governments. Don't rock the boat, baby.

With regards to the video recovery - this just sort of seems like standard operating procedure for police departments anymore. I'm sure they're drooling over the prospect of getting some unmanned drones with their DHS grants. Yeah, us!

If "real" police officers are not like this, why are they not more vocal against the fucking pigs that are?

What makes you think they aren't vocal? And how would you prefer them to be vocal about it?

Useful clarifying question, constructive criticism: +2 points.

Quote:

Quote:

The reality, all police are like this.... Until some of them stand up against it.

How old are you?

Ad hominem, -1

Sorry but when someone posts what he did an ends with "FUCK THE POLICE", it is legitimate question to ask "how old are you". If not for age clarification, then for a subtle reminder of how old he is acting.

What an idiot. Rule number one - when police are engaged in some sort of law enforcement action - don't approach them.

+ this!Let's add to that "don't keep your hands in your pockets when a cop has a gun drawn on you and orders you to show your hands," and "don't keep driving when when you see flashing lights in the rear view mirror."

I have zero sympathy for "victims" who act like the rules don't apply to them. I will reiterate: the First Amendment does NOT give journalists special treatment. They don't get any more rights than anyone else.

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race

If he were really as smart as he thinks he is, he would have intentionally nerfed his score

Thanks for the information. Any police officers happen to read this article will physically destroy the cameras from now on.

The police in Miami have physically destroyed recording equipment in the past. I know of one specific instance where they smashed the cellphone of someone recording an arrest.

Personally I'm of the opinion that any honest officer would welcome the recordings because they would have nothing to hide from the public they have sworn to protect.

Police officer "protect and serve" the law, not the people, in the US, afaik:

"Protection of individuals

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled numerous times since 1856 that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect any individual, despite the motto "protect and serve". Their duty is to enforce the law in general. The first such case was in 1855 (South et al. v. State of Maryland, U.S (Supreme Court of the United States 1855). ) and the most recent in 2005 (Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales).[69]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police

I am sure this has been said, but it resonates in my mind. When police record via CCTV, etc. civilians, they say "If you're doing nothing wrong/illegal, you have nothing to worry about."

YET...

When civilians return the surveillance, the police take issue. Surely if they are doing nothing wrong and lawfully performing their duty, the video should not worry them right? Surely it should prove what a good job they are doing, no?

I and I think many people have very little respect for police officers. Speeding most of their time giving out tickets, suppressing/deleting videos of of journalists, denying excessive force then being caught on video doing just that. They are supposed to represent the best in society to which they fall way short. They seem largely arrogant bullies. This is the face of they too often present to the average person.

I got to page 3 before I couldn't read anymore "Well if he was an asshole, I'd arrest him too," and "I totally side with the police when people are rambunctious," crap.

You go into law enforcement knowing you have to contain people. Knowing you have to deal with rowdiness. You train to quell social situations. You know that these people are not going to respect you, and they are going to further disrespect you if you give in and behave exactly like they want you to.

It is unacceptable to me to excuse officers who cannot do their job without resorting to juvenile tactics and straight-up violence.

I got *really* bent when someone referred to the Atlanta protests and said that if they had to "live" or "work" near that scenario they'd applaud the police. I work across from the parks where the Portland Occupy took place. I saw, heard, smelled everything going on for months. I had absolutely no issue with what they were doing because it benefits all of us.

After listening to the silenced police scanner after they moved to a private channel, I went to the livestreams from the protesters themselves. The entire thing was a mess, and the mayor was criticized for the waste of money.

At the end of the day, this country wouldn't have been founded if people didn't stick up for themselves the way they're doing now. It's disgusting to see anyone looking at these situations as a couple of ne'er-do-wells just being asses to be asses. You've obviously been aloof to why these protests are happening and the very irony of the police brutality that has been happening because of it. Furthermore, it seems people are forgetting that undercover police go into these crowds and pretend to get rowdy/instigate unruly behavior so that their comrades have an excuse to detain.

Pictures are nearly worthless in court for something like that; it only shows one side: what the photographer wanted you to see. Thus, video is the best choice.

For instance, I could take a snapshot of my pacifist buddy after stamping on his toe with the heel of my foot and show it to someone who knows either of us and ask: "What kind of person do you think this is?" Do you think they'd say "a peace-loving hippie college student?" No, they'd say "someone who looks like he'd gut your dog."

I have zero sympathy for "victims" who act like the rules don't apply to them.

You mean the cops?

DanubisTConcise wrote:

I will reiterate: the First Amendment does NOT give journalists special treatment. They don't get any more rights than anyone else.

That's true. We are all equally subject to the whims and brutality of jack-booted troglodytes.

jweller13 wrote:

I and I think many people have very little respect for police officers. Speeding most of their time giving out tickets, suppressing/deleting videos of of journalists, denying excessive force then being caught on video doing just that. They are supposed to represent the best in society to which they fall way short. They seem largely arrogant bullies. This is the face of they too often present to the average person.

The desire to become a police officer should be reason enough to deny that person the opportunity.

If "real" police officers are not like this, why are they not more vocal against the fucking pigs that are?

What makes you think they aren't vocal? And how would you prefer them to be vocal about it?

Quote:

The reality, all police are like this.... Until some of them stand up against it.

How old are you?

Every time one of these cases is dragged kicking and screaming into the light, the same thing happens each and every time. Police don't turn in police. Even when presented with utterly indisputable evidence, the police rarely get more than a just-for-show slap on the wrist. On occasion, the IA might bust cops performing extreme corruption, like drug running.

When police just making up charges of "resisting arrest", police NEVER EVER turn each other in. Seriously, find two fucking documented case of a police officer turning another one in for falsely charging someone with resisting arrest. At best, you might find an instance where a civilian got killed or maimed and a police officer in a rare fit of moral consensus broke during the investigation. When police tell on each other, it is only because someone else started an investigation to try and understand why someone get their head stomped in.

Police literally never turn each other in in cases like this where one officer blatantly lies and makes up minor charges. Yes, you can paint them all as corrupt bastards, with the possible exception of the much reviled Internal Affairs.

Not every police officer is a jack booted Nazi stomping on the rights of citizens, but they do all cover for them, and that makes them all corrupt in my book.

I wouldn't say never, but I would say rarely. Admitedly my sole experience with this was a "minor traffic ticket". However, its not so minor when you generally consider yourself a good driver and its the only one you have received in 12 years of driving.

79 in a 40. Actual rate of speed according to my speedometer about 50mph...and my speedometer tends to read 1-2mph high at 50mph, so probably more like 48-49mph. This coming to a rest area and exist ramps at the end/start of an interstate 2 miles away (65 down to 55 for about a mile down to 40 for about 400yds down to 25 for 100yds in to the rest area (cop sitting at the 25mph sign)). I bloody well saw the cop for well over 200yds before I even hit the 40mph zone. Why the heck would I be driving double the limit? Especially since the road narrowed to a single lane AT the 40mph speed limit sign? And there were several cars immediately in front and behind me?

Needless to say I was incredulous when the cop pulled me over and handed me the ticket. With a relatively nicely worded response of "Really? Are you sure I was going that fast? Because I was keeping up with traffic and my speedometer said I wasn't even doing 50?"

I relayed all of this in court fighting the ticket as well as bringing up things like how inaccurate radar is at a quarter mile (beam spread of about 100ft, IE over about 10 lanes of traffic), that I wasn't the only dark blue car, the fact that the officer in question seemed to verbally threaten me when I was (nicely) dubious as to his speed reading, single lane of traffic, at rush hour, etc for how if I was going that fast, why was I pulled over in the middle of a pack of cars and not the lead or trailing car? etc.

Judge mostly spent the time glaring at the cop, reduced it to 49 in a 40 (I stated that was the speed I believed I was going), actually told the officer that next time he needed to be more polite to motorists and be more certain of responses (he couldn't tell the judge if there were even other cars on the road at the time "Uh...well I guess at that time of day there may have been other cars on the road...but I am certain yours was the one speeding. Otherwise I wouldn't have pulled you over".

Long rant/vent, but just my little personal experience of a jack ass cop along with pretty obviously manufactured speeding ticket (or the dumbest/least obsevant cop having a bad day and faulty radar) Let alone something worse.

All that ranting aside, in college I worked with one of the township police departments near my university on an internship. Small little 16 officer department. Pretty much universally nice guys (well, and a couple of gals). With ride alongs, inverviews and some time spent in the station house I certainly didn't experience jerkiness, corruption, etc. That said, it was also a small department, so likely what you are going to find is either A) Pretty universally good cops or B) universally horrible, corrupt and dispicable officers.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.